Taking a Final Stand for the Planet: An Interview with Justice Michael D. Wilson

Justice Michael D. Wilson is a retired Associate Justice of the Hawaii Supreme Court and an internationally respected leader in environmental law and climate justice. Born and raised in the coastal town of Kailua, Hawaii, Justice Wilson’s lifelong connection to Hawaii’s natural beauty has shaped his career, which has been dedicated to using the law to defend ecosystems - as a litigator, reformer, and, ultimately, a Supreme Court Judge. Throughout his judicial tenure, he played a pivotal role in landmark decisions affirming the right to a life-sustaining climate, both in Hawaii and as part of a larger, global dialogue on environmental jurisprudence. Justice Wilson’s mentorship and vision directly sparked the creation of The Final Stand at JGU, providing students with a platform to engage with policy, drive dialogue and champion climate justice on campus and beyond. Justice Wilson continues to guide and inspire The Final Stand, as an architect of our mission to utilise the transformative power of the law to take care of our planet.

Thank you for this opportunity to interview you, Justice Michael D Wilson. How would you introduce yourself? What has inspired you to be such a staunch advocate for the environment through your career and tenure as a judge?

My background is profoundly shaped by where I am from, Hawaii. I have been a judge for over 20 years, and like everyone, I have been influenced by the place I call home. Hawaii and India share a personal and psychological connection because, in Hawaii, we are very connected to nature, which is now being threatened by global warming. I come from perhaps the most beautiful place on earth, with spectacular resources that are unfortunately endangered by rising temperatures. I grew up by the ocean and spent much time in the forests. As a lawyer, I would use the law to protect these parts of Hawaii. As a judge, I have been very fortunate to work with judges worldwide on environmental law and climate issues.

I was from a town called Kailua, a beautiful beach community that also included a large area of marsh, and when I was in high school, development threatened the beach and the marsh. I became involved in the movement to save the march in high school, and once again after returning from college. It became clear that to protect Hawaii, it was necessary for the community to get organised involved in politics. That’s exactly what my community in Kailua did to stop the government from joining the company that wanted to replace the marsh with a shopping centre that would have damaged corals and polluted the ocean. As a lawyer, I worked pro bono on environmental cases. I later became Director of the Department of Land and Natural Resources for Hawaii, appointed by the Governor, who knew I had sued the State for neglecting its environmental duties. With the Governor’s support, we reformed weak programs. Later, he was the person who suggested I become a judge, which. It was unusual for an environmental attorney to get elevated, because the very nature of their work opposes State and corporate interests. I was honoured to be appointed, first handling civil and criminal trials for 10 years, then serving on Hawaii’s Supreme Court for another 10 years. During this time, Hawaii’s judges developed closer ties with judges in India. This connection is vital because Indian justices are uniquely independent and courageous, with a deep cultural commitment to protecting nature.

In India, the right against climate change effects has been recognised as a constitutional right. Sometime last year, the EU issued a recent directive which criminalised ecocide and other types of extreme environmental destruction. There is a cultural shift which has further entrenched climate change as an issue demanding legal intervention. Do you think current laws enough to address climate threats? How can the law be used to mitigate environmental degradation and protect ecosystems from irrevocable damage?

It is essential to consider whether we have laws to protect nature, the environment, and our community from the extreme effects of climate change. The answer is yes – we have sufficient laws to safeguard our community from climate change and environmental damage.

We should avoid the lengthy process of amending constitutions or changing statutes, as time is limited to prevent the collapse of life-sustaining ecosystems. There are already sufficient laws in place, including constitutional and statutory references and common law that relies on precedents, to protect our communities from climate change. When it comes to applying the laws, we are in an era similar to other eras of violation of human rights.

In 2015, Pakistan’s Leghari case, a landmark ruling by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, recognised the constitutional right to a life-sustaining climate. The plaintiff, a farmer, argued that government inaction violated this right. Justice Mansoor said something very logical: “The right to life in the Constitution certainly means the right to a life-sustaining climate.” This influenced other cases like Urgenda Foundation in Europe. The Hawaii’s Supreme Court was the first US court to affirm this right explicitly. This was a decision shaped by our exchanges with Indian judges. In Hawaii, young people sued the State for lacking a climate plan, and the Governor agreed. There has been a settlement, in which the plaintiffs, the youth, and the world-class experts have joined the state of Hawaii to put together an plan action plan to mitigate potential adverse fallout from climate change. You can see why this is an important case in the US and the world – there is an unusual and extraordinary combination of the executive, governor, and judicial branches working together to address the climate emergency.

We shouldn’t forget the Ranjith Sinh case. This is, arguably, one of the most important cases in the history of climate jurisprudence in India. Justice Chandrachud wrote an opinion that recognized the right to a life-sustaining climate under the Right to Life enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This provides a clear tool for young people and the groups that are most vulnerable to seek legal remedies in case they are so afflicted.

You are currently teaching a course in JGLS on the Climate Emergency. I wanted to ask: What is this Climate Emergency? What fallout does it entail, and how can the law be used as an instrument to mitigate or alleviate it?

Climate emergency is a fairly straightforward concept – it means people are now predictably going to die because they will not be able to live in an environment that will support their lives. India is already facing changing monsoons, droughts, reduced food production, and extreme weather events like fires and floods. Hawaii recently suffered unprecedented fires, as did California. Such disasters, hurricanes, extreme rainfall, and sea level rise are on the daily news. In Southeast Asia, rice-producing regions like the Mekong Delta are at risk from salt mixing into the crops as sea levels rise, threatening food security. In coastal countries and especially islands, rising seas may displace large volumes of the population. The glaciers will be gone in a predictable period, probably within a couple of hundred years, and the Ganges will be gone, which takes the heart and soul out of India in many ways.

Law, then, becomes a tool to restore hope, and policy has the power to mitigate the climate emergency. There are courageous attorneys who are taking a stand against institutional ignorance of the climate-related catastrophes. To address climate change, the solution is straightforward: reduce carbon and methane in the air to prevent continued heating of the Earth. We have the technology to achieve this. The problem is that there is an enormous, unprecedented power concentrated in business models that benefit from burning fossil fuels. For example, the US should not provide subsidies to oil industries and instead, invest these financial resources into projects which have environmental and social benefit. In India, a maximum threshold for acceptable pollutant discharge by an industry should be enforced by the government, especially in places where life is threatened, like New Delhi, whose dangerous air quality guarantees a shortening of life if exposed to for long periods of time. A targeted plan to reduce emissions could make a huge difference and would be far more effective than being in a position where countries need to navigate how to deal with already emitted greenhouse gases.

Sometimes, government action itself contributes to environmental degradation and GHG emissions. These feel like such “big” problems that an individual alone cannot handle. Often, you may believe that your government’s climate policy does not adequately address the problem; however, in most cases, the entity and problem that you’re up against feels like Goliath compared to you, and therefore far beyond your control. This leads many young people to feel hopeless due to a lack of initiative and recognition. What advice would you give to young people to overcome this hopelessness?

States and large corporates are not yet willing to make the changes needed to protect the most vulnerable children, the indigenous, and those on the frontlines who are suffering, getting sick, or dying due to extreme weather events. Ordinary people worldwide are not being protected by their governments. However, movements are forming to overcome the influence of what I call the “giants”, that is, oil corporations and fossil fuel interests that benefit immensely from supressing any form of climate-related dissent. The availability of alternatives to fossil fuels is only set to increase, that threatens their power.

While a young person today has a reason to be concerned, it’s important to hold on to the idea that you can create transformational change merely by staying true to what you believe in. India has a formative example of such resolve – Mahatma Gandhi, went against the most powerful empire in the world at the time, and brought about change because he committed to a cause that resonated with the people of India. There is an urgency for us to come together and collectively pool our efforts to drive change. Fossil fuel industries are the most profitable in human history, so expecting them to change voluntarily is unrealistic. However, by dedicating time to join groups and organizations like The Final Stand, to drive political organization of youth at the grassroot levels – that’s what matters. It’s not a change meant to hurt anybody, rather, it’s a change that would be the most important recognition of a fundamental human right, because we are protecting a part of the population that all cultures and all religions revere – children, and by extension, the future.

[This interview was conducted by Jade da Silva and transcribed by Ruchiranana Marripudi, both law students at JGLS]